Ansett Administration????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ansett Administration????
Employee Update
An update for former Ansett employees Update 11
24 March, 2003
Dear former employee,
GROUND STAFF SUPERANNUATION PLAN TRUSTEES TO APPEAL
This afternoon Monday 24 March, 2003, the Trustees of the Ansett Ground Staff Superannuation Plan have served notice to appeal the decision and orders handed down by Justice Warren in the Supreme Court on 7th February, 2003.
This course of action is extremely regrettable. Ansett Administration, on behalf of all employees, won the case on 7th February, 2003. The Trustees, on the advice of their lawyers, have decided to appeal the decision, and unfortunately there is nothing we can do to change that decision. We will continue to work hard on your behalf to resolve the issues as quickly as possible.
We sincerely regret this frustrating position. To date the Ansett Administration has raised some $360million which is currently banked, and increasing as we continue to sell remaining assets including aircraft, spare parts and to pursue debt recoveries.
Due to the Trustees decision to appeal we remain as yet unable to distribute any part of these monies until this matter is fully resolved.
In summary, the court case is about whether we can distribute our cash reserves:
fairly and equitably to 15,000 employees as redundancy dividends (as voted by the creditors in the Deed of Company Arrangement), or
pay up to $200m to only 8700 members of the Ground Staff Plan.
Attached are some "Frequently Asked Questions" (with answers) in relation to this matter.
Should you have any further queries, you are welcome to telephone the staff hotline on 1800 151 604.
Mark Korda
Administrator Mark Mentha
Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Now that notice of an appeal has been served, when will I receive any further redundancy monies?
The Supreme Court provided an advisory decision that the retrenchment benefit does not rank as a priority payment. This decision meant that we could make redundancy dividends in the manner set out in the Third Report to Creditors (i.e. initially three quarterly instalments, starting in December 2002, of 10%, 5% and 5% for amounts owing to employees of greater than 8 weeks redundancy).
If the Trustees withdraw the appeal, we could make the 10% and 5% dividend of the greater than 8 weeks amount, within 5 business days of the withdrawal, and then 5% by the end of June 2003. Otherwise, further payments can not be made until the matter is formerly resolved in Court.
If we have $360m in the bank, why can't we receive some of this immediately as a redundancy dividend?
We have $360m in the bank, which must be distributed in the correct priority as set out in Corporations Law and in the Deed of Company Arrangement.
The priority of distributions is such that the Government is to be repaid some $170m of the SEESA loan prior to redundancy dividends being made to employees. This, together with the Trustees claiming a superannuation contribution of up to $200m means that none of the $360m is currently available for employees.
An update for former Ansett employees Update 11
24 March, 2003
Dear former employee,
GROUND STAFF SUPERANNUATION PLAN TRUSTEES TO APPEAL
This afternoon Monday 24 March, 2003, the Trustees of the Ansett Ground Staff Superannuation Plan have served notice to appeal the decision and orders handed down by Justice Warren in the Supreme Court on 7th February, 2003.
This course of action is extremely regrettable. Ansett Administration, on behalf of all employees, won the case on 7th February, 2003. The Trustees, on the advice of their lawyers, have decided to appeal the decision, and unfortunately there is nothing we can do to change that decision. We will continue to work hard on your behalf to resolve the issues as quickly as possible.
We sincerely regret this frustrating position. To date the Ansett Administration has raised some $360million which is currently banked, and increasing as we continue to sell remaining assets including aircraft, spare parts and to pursue debt recoveries.
Due to the Trustees decision to appeal we remain as yet unable to distribute any part of these monies until this matter is fully resolved.
In summary, the court case is about whether we can distribute our cash reserves:
fairly and equitably to 15,000 employees as redundancy dividends (as voted by the creditors in the Deed of Company Arrangement), or
pay up to $200m to only 8700 members of the Ground Staff Plan.
Attached are some "Frequently Asked Questions" (with answers) in relation to this matter.
Should you have any further queries, you are welcome to telephone the staff hotline on 1800 151 604.
Mark Korda
Administrator Mark Mentha
Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Now that notice of an appeal has been served, when will I receive any further redundancy monies?
The Supreme Court provided an advisory decision that the retrenchment benefit does not rank as a priority payment. This decision meant that we could make redundancy dividends in the manner set out in the Third Report to Creditors (i.e. initially three quarterly instalments, starting in December 2002, of 10%, 5% and 5% for amounts owing to employees of greater than 8 weeks redundancy).
If the Trustees withdraw the appeal, we could make the 10% and 5% dividend of the greater than 8 weeks amount, within 5 business days of the withdrawal, and then 5% by the end of June 2003. Otherwise, further payments can not be made until the matter is formerly resolved in Court.
If we have $360m in the bank, why can't we receive some of this immediately as a redundancy dividend?
We have $360m in the bank, which must be distributed in the correct priority as set out in Corporations Law and in the Deed of Company Arrangement.
The priority of distributions is such that the Government is to be repaid some $170m of the SEESA loan prior to redundancy dividends being made to employees. This, together with the Trustees claiming a superannuation contribution of up to $200m means that none of the $360m is currently available for employees.
Evertonian
So, they've already spent $300 million so far, collected $360 million and none of it could be ours, potentially? In the mean time, they won't sell the 767 hangar to QF and they won't sell the A320's to TAA...Hmmm.....How much of a drain is the maintenance base to the administration? Why is it only recently, that the LAME's were put on permanent day shift?
The things you see, when you haven't got a gun!!!
The things you see, when you haven't got a gun!!!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
And whilst it probably seems very "smart" to the M&M's to string this out for as long as possible, and reap millions for themselves, thousands of decent, ex-Ansett employees are being denied money that is undoubtedly the difference between keeping possession of their home, car, and sanity.
As a matter of interest, does anyone know that if the claim to pay "up to $200m to 8,700 members of the Ground Staff Plan", had been an amount of "up to $190m", would the redundancy payouts have then gone ahead?
Also, because the total of the 2 claims exceeds the $360m (by $10m), is the Government also not being paid the $170m using the same reasoning?
As a matter of interest, does anyone know that if the claim to pay "up to $200m to 8,700 members of the Ground Staff Plan", had been an amount of "up to $190m", would the redundancy payouts have then gone ahead?
Also, because the total of the 2 claims exceeds the $360m (by $10m), is the Government also not being paid the $170m using the same reasoning?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm back!
Well,well well.
What a surprise, did anyone really think they would see their money again?
I had the sense to apply for redundancy, and after six months of hassling, I finally got 90% of my Super!
Here are a few questions to the ground staff,
(1) Would you rather have your money now, when you need it or later. (remember, the way the Super funds have been performing, you may as well kiss it goodbye)
(2) How many of you will have enough super to give you more income than a pension?
(3) I recommend that you take the money and run.
Well,well well.
What a surprise, did anyone really think they would see their money again?
I had the sense to apply for redundancy, and after six months of hassling, I finally got 90% of my Super!
Here are a few questions to the ground staff,
(1) Would you rather have your money now, when you need it or later. (remember, the way the Super funds have been performing, you may as well kiss it goodbye)
(2) How many of you will have enough super to give you more income than a pension?
(3) I recommend that you take the money and run.
Evertonian
Zoolander. Just one point. Thanks to the "Hon" R.J.Hawke, those of us born after 1964 are not guaranteed a pension. In other words, self sufficiency will be the go! We may not get all of the Super and we definately won't get all the entitlements, but every cent I can put away before that magical day when the government tells me to PlSS OFF, when I ask for my pension, will be like gold then!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ansett levy to be axed
By Simon Kearney
March 30, 2003
THE controversial Ansett ticket levy, which collects $11 million a month from airline users, is expected to be dropped when Federal Cabinet meets on Tuesday.
It would have the immediate effect of reducing most return air fares by $10, although the tax may be re-introduced later because of new legal action against Ansett administrators.
Transport Minister and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson will recommend a suspension of the scheme, which the Cabinet is believed to have agreed in principle to axe.
The levy, which was introduced to cover the entitlements of 10,000 Ansett workers, has collected $210 million.
But a last-minute lawsuit by a superannuation fund has raised the possibility the tax might be needed again.
An appeal was lodged last week by the trustee of the Ansett Australia Ground Staff Superannuation Plan on behalf of 8700 members. It seeks between $150 million and $200 million.
The Sunday Telegraph
By Simon Kearney
March 30, 2003
THE controversial Ansett ticket levy, which collects $11 million a month from airline users, is expected to be dropped when Federal Cabinet meets on Tuesday.
It would have the immediate effect of reducing most return air fares by $10, although the tax may be re-introduced later because of new legal action against Ansett administrators.
Transport Minister and Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson will recommend a suspension of the scheme, which the Cabinet is believed to have agreed in principle to axe.
The levy, which was introduced to cover the entitlements of 10,000 Ansett workers, has collected $210 million.
But a last-minute lawsuit by a superannuation fund has raised the possibility the tax might be needed again.
An appeal was lodged last week by the trustee of the Ansett Australia Ground Staff Superannuation Plan on behalf of 8700 members. It seeks between $150 million and $200 million.
The Sunday Telegraph
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sydney
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Marks going national
By Leonie Wood
March 31 2003
One year after the collapse of Arthur Andersen forced two of the firm's Melbourne partners, Mark Korda and Mark Mentha, to go it alone, the pair have expanded their insolvency specialist business by linking with peers in three other states.
From today, the corporate recovery specialists Clout & Associates in Perth and Brisbane and accountants Duncan Powell in Adelaide will become part of a national KordaMentha partnership.
KordaMentha already have operations in Melbourne and Sydney.
The move is a bid to prove that KordaMentha, which is liquidating Ansett Airlines, has enough resources in all states to ensure it secures a share of mandates for mid-sized or big companies facing corporate restructuring or insolvency.
Other insolvency specialists argue that the industry is going through one of its quietest periods since the mid-1980s after all the excitement of the collapses of HIH, Ansett, Pasminco, One.Tel and Harris Scarfe.
Ansett's liquidation continues and, while KordaMentha has about $360 million on hand after selling assets including the lease of Ansett's passenger terminal in Sydney, priority creditors such as the Commonwealth and employees are still owed hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Commonwealth alone is owed just over $330 million for paying employees their wages, holiday pay, sick leave and up to eight weeks of salary for redundancy.
The Transport Minister, John Anderson, is expected to ask Cabinet today to suspend the $10 Ansett ticket levy on domestic air tickets.
smh Monday
By Leonie Wood
March 31 2003
One year after the collapse of Arthur Andersen forced two of the firm's Melbourne partners, Mark Korda and Mark Mentha, to go it alone, the pair have expanded their insolvency specialist business by linking with peers in three other states.
From today, the corporate recovery specialists Clout & Associates in Perth and Brisbane and accountants Duncan Powell in Adelaide will become part of a national KordaMentha partnership.
KordaMentha already have operations in Melbourne and Sydney.
The move is a bid to prove that KordaMentha, which is liquidating Ansett Airlines, has enough resources in all states to ensure it secures a share of mandates for mid-sized or big companies facing corporate restructuring or insolvency.
Other insolvency specialists argue that the industry is going through one of its quietest periods since the mid-1980s after all the excitement of the collapses of HIH, Ansett, Pasminco, One.Tel and Harris Scarfe.
Ansett's liquidation continues and, while KordaMentha has about $360 million on hand after selling assets including the lease of Ansett's passenger terminal in Sydney, priority creditors such as the Commonwealth and employees are still owed hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Commonwealth alone is owed just over $330 million for paying employees their wages, holiday pay, sick leave and up to eight weeks of salary for redundancy.
The Transport Minister, John Anderson, is expected to ask Cabinet today to suspend the $10 Ansett ticket levy on domestic air tickets.
smh Monday
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster Hyman
BOHICA my friend.
It is really in your hands, nothing is going to change until you guys take it back.
I watched the movie "Erin Brokhovich" (speling?) again on Foxtel last night, it was like the first time I saw it a real inspiration in perseverance and not letting them bulls hit you.
BOHICA my friend.
It is really in your hands, nothing is going to change until you guys take it back.
I watched the movie "Erin Brokhovich" (speling?) again on Foxtel last night, it was like the first time I saw it a real inspiration in perseverance and not letting them bulls hit you.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't think we are going to see any more money. Look at the aircraft sitting at Tulla. I did hear a rumour that Australian Air Express put an offer in on one or two 767's but it was knocked back. I can't see any more purchaser's coming forward. I wonder what will happen to all the aircraft that can't be sold. Scrap I guess.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buster you are still better off having the money now than have it put into a super fund because you can decide what to do with it and not let a fund manager and the government keep dipping into it. I'm not sure about being disadvantaged if you were born after 1964 because I get no advantages for being born in 1963. Where the cut-off is if you had super before 1983 then you can access it before age 55 and it is not taxed. This appeal is not going to help anyone other than the lawyers and the adminstrators.
Evertonian
permFO...I think it is true that we won't see a red cent. The best we can do is wish KordaMentha all the very best for their expansion plans!!! NOT! With that in mind, if the NSPBuck win, there will be a definative amount recieved by staff, albeit groundstaff, from the Administrators. Otherwise, there may be nothing at all coming from the luxurious offices of KordaMentha!
Gaunty...I don't bother standing up straight these days....may as well go out & buy a George Michael album!!!
Zoolander...I'll see if I can look it up & confirm it for you.
Gaunty...I don't bother standing up straight these days....may as well go out & buy a George Michael album!!!
Zoolander...I'll see if I can look it up & confirm it for you.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't seen nor studied the latest "asset" register so I make these remarks in isolation.
But if any of the so called "assets" that are a component of the long awaited "distribution" are aircraft, then they should be reset to zero as the only realistic measure of whether the "administration" should continue to consume whatever else is left.
I would suggest it is time that this issue is revisited by a totally independent expert or panel thereof, quickly.
I have some experience of the valuation process, not in airliners, but the principle is exactly the same.
It is possible to assign a 'notional' value that assumes that there are buyers in the market place and that the value is “somewhat” above the parting out value or scrapping value
The "somewhat" is what gets consumed fairly quickly in "administration and holding" costs whether they are the subject of a failure of the company or not.
Why do you think the B742 City of Bunbury is sitting out there at LRE in all her quiet majesty? Are AN B76s any younger or lower time?? I doubt it, but I'm sure there si someone out there who can provide chapter and verse.
Her sisters are either in a desert somewhere or surrounding someone’s favourite beverage, having fulfilled their original task.
Alongside the "past their used by dates" aircraft are squadrons and squadrons of new or near new in flyable storage that are the real competition.
Why would anyone buy what's left of the Ansett fleet, which is on the evidence here is both tired and non std, when there are several hundred strolling brokers of no fixed percentage who, can "fix" you up, with something that is not.
EPIRB says;
If this was so, it was because; London to a brick, AAE offered what the aircraft were "actually" worth.
If it was knocked back, I would offer that it was because it did not fit the "price scenario" constructed to keep the creditors hanging around for a bit longer and would crystallise any "Pollyanna" surrounding the "value" of the so called "assets".
Any available cash therefore that is being consumed by the "administration" is not going to be "refunded" by the hoped for "asset" sales and you don't need to be a mental giant to work out who loses.
So called innovative modern = BS, business, concepts and 'modern' accounting principles are increasingly being "defrocked" and trusted and battle tested old lessons being relearned on a daily basis. HIH, Enron, Andersens to name but a few.
Two of the simplest and most robust of the old are;
2 + 2 = 4 and,
The first loss is ALWAYS the best loss.
Don't get me started on the first, but you are waaaaaaay past the second in the disposal of the airline and the aircraft.
Unless you take control back from the Unions and everyone else on the Creditors committee who does not have a direct personal financial interest and review the whole thing from A to B, every day that goes past just transfers more dollars from your pocket to the cost of administration.
Liquidation will IMHO produce a result, not what you were promised, which has been the object of a serial reduction since day 1, but what you will really get now.
Administrations tend to be zero sum games for the creditors.
What you get now however small will then be in your personal control and you will get to have the fun of either losing or spending your money yourself
The other perhaps more real effect will be to crystallise the staff hopes and disappointments and allow them to get on with their lives.
It would be a tragedy for those who are hanging out and have not moved their lives forward in hope or expectation, wind up with, as is most likely, a mouthful of feathers.
As an aside, I have a problem, like most in OZ, watching the obscenely highly paid fund managers lose substantial amounts of my assets and charge me heaps for the privilege. I have taken it all back under my personal control. I can’t do any worse and I get to have the fun of making it or losing it if that is the way it works out.
I think it is time the AN staff took back control of what is left of their assets.
I see reports around here that KordaMentha are building a national insolvency business.
Is it pulling too strong a bow to suggest that the AN staff are shareholders in that process as the core "client"?
But if any of the so called "assets" that are a component of the long awaited "distribution" are aircraft, then they should be reset to zero as the only realistic measure of whether the "administration" should continue to consume whatever else is left.
I would suggest it is time that this issue is revisited by a totally independent expert or panel thereof, quickly.
I have some experience of the valuation process, not in airliners, but the principle is exactly the same.
It is possible to assign a 'notional' value that assumes that there are buyers in the market place and that the value is “somewhat” above the parting out value or scrapping value
The "somewhat" is what gets consumed fairly quickly in "administration and holding" costs whether they are the subject of a failure of the company or not.
Why do you think the B742 City of Bunbury is sitting out there at LRE in all her quiet majesty? Are AN B76s any younger or lower time?? I doubt it, but I'm sure there si someone out there who can provide chapter and verse.
Her sisters are either in a desert somewhere or surrounding someone’s favourite beverage, having fulfilled their original task.
Alongside the "past their used by dates" aircraft are squadrons and squadrons of new or near new in flyable storage that are the real competition.
Why would anyone buy what's left of the Ansett fleet, which is on the evidence here is both tired and non std, when there are several hundred strolling brokers of no fixed percentage who, can "fix" you up, with something that is not.
EPIRB says;
I did hear a rumour that Australian Air Express put an offer in on one or two 767's but it was knocked back
If it was knocked back, I would offer that it was because it did not fit the "price scenario" constructed to keep the creditors hanging around for a bit longer and would crystallise any "Pollyanna" surrounding the "value" of the so called "assets".
Any available cash therefore that is being consumed by the "administration" is not going to be "refunded" by the hoped for "asset" sales and you don't need to be a mental giant to work out who loses.
So called innovative modern = BS, business, concepts and 'modern' accounting principles are increasingly being "defrocked" and trusted and battle tested old lessons being relearned on a daily basis. HIH, Enron, Andersens to name but a few.
Two of the simplest and most robust of the old are;
2 + 2 = 4 and,
The first loss is ALWAYS the best loss.
Don't get me started on the first, but you are waaaaaaay past the second in the disposal of the airline and the aircraft.
Unless you take control back from the Unions and everyone else on the Creditors committee who does not have a direct personal financial interest and review the whole thing from A to B, every day that goes past just transfers more dollars from your pocket to the cost of administration.
Liquidation will IMHO produce a result, not what you were promised, which has been the object of a serial reduction since day 1, but what you will really get now.
Administrations tend to be zero sum games for the creditors.
What you get now however small will then be in your personal control and you will get to have the fun of either losing or spending your money yourself
The other perhaps more real effect will be to crystallise the staff hopes and disappointments and allow them to get on with their lives.
It would be a tragedy for those who are hanging out and have not moved their lives forward in hope or expectation, wind up with, as is most likely, a mouthful of feathers.
As an aside, I have a problem, like most in OZ, watching the obscenely highly paid fund managers lose substantial amounts of my assets and charge me heaps for the privilege. I have taken it all back under my personal control. I can’t do any worse and I get to have the fun of making it or losing it if that is the way it works out.
I think it is time the AN staff took back control of what is left of their assets.
I see reports around here that KordaMentha are building a national insolvency business.
Is it pulling too strong a bow to suggest that the AN staff are shareholders in that process as the core "client"?
